tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg December 23, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
i am pleased to have tom donilon back at this table. >> glad to be here. >> i want to look back, but at where we are today first. iran and the negotiations -- how do you test the iranians? >> we have an agreement to have a negotiation for at least six months with a good basis, and not having the program go forward during those negotiations. the next phase is to see that they implement that initial phase. that is what is going on now. experts are now saying we get in place the mechanism we need to ensure there is not any more uranium enriched at the end of the six months, that they neutralize the 20%. that will lay the grounds for negotiations in january. >> what is the test going to be? >> it is whether the iranians understand and are prepared to go forward with the rollback of this program. you they really understand what
is going to be required to get the international community and the united states the confidence it needs to ensure they are not going forward with a military -- with a nuclear weapons program? we are going to have to see. >> was there something within those -- knowing that was your goal, you had to go forward. in other words, you had to test them. >> by the way, to date, the reason we are at the table is because the united states led an effort beginning in the bush administration and intensified during the obama administration to put in place very tightly targeted, calibrated sanctions, that were supported by the international immunity, including the russians and chinese. that is the key. those sanctions led in a direct line to the election of rouhani this past spring, to the negotiations and his outreach, and to where we are now. pressure on the economic front has been immense.
>> the criticism is that the pressure that resulted on the iranians coming to the table -- if that is true, why let up on the pressure? >> the purpose of the sanctions was not sanctions for the sake of sanctions. it was to make clear to the people and the iranian leadership that the only way forward from immense pressure, which continues during the negotiations -- they get $6 billion to $7 billion relief, but the pressure continues. just last week, the united states put on additional sanctions. >> leading the iranian foreign minister say we may walk on this. the next day. >> my judgment is -- deeply
involved with the sanctions effort -- the pressure is on iranians in several respects. economic pressure continues during the course of the negotiations, so they cannot just stall these negotiations and expect to get out from under pressure. it continues at a high level. we did additional last week. expectation. when the foreign minister went back to tehran, he was given a positive welcome. >> a hero. some sectors criticized him. >> but again, the supreme leader has indicated they are going to support these negotiations, at least so far. but what does that mean? it means they have expectations among the iranian people that they are going to make progress here.
that puts pressure on them. a failure to move forward and come to understanding with the international community will be seen as a failure on the part of rouhani and zarif. the pressure is all on the iranians. >> as you suggested, you built up this innermost sanctions force. some people say if you begin to reduce that, it will be much harder to bring it back. if that is true. that is why the structure of this is so important. they get some of the frozen funds unfrozen, in phases. if they pull out or do not negotiate in good faith, we can turn that off. the hard-hitting sanctions which we carefully -- during the bush administration through the obama administration -- they were carefully targeted on banking and finance. they are excluded from banking in the world, and their oil revenues are tightly targeted. those remain in place. if those had been taken down, i agree with you. but they did not. they remained in place during the negotiations.
>> how do you come down on this idea that sanctions hurt the people but do not hurt dictators? >> we have a goal in mind to address a serious security threat and problem. sanctions here were targeted, foremost, on individuals and groups that supported the nuclear program. but we also brought pressure more generally on the economy. the idea was to force a choice. the idea was to have what happened in the elections last spring, where the iranian people stood up and said, what are we getting out of this nuclear deal? why aren't we moving forward with negotiations in order for us to have an economic life that makes sense and be integrated in the world? iran is not like north korea. it is a large and vibrant country that has, through its own withdrawal from the world, cut itself off and hurt its people. and that is a choice they have
to make. >> tom frieman was here last night. he said, they have to make a choice. does it want to be korea or china? >> there was a piece saying that in 1979, iran walked out of the modern world. the choice they have to make and the supreme leader has to make is whether they want to walk back in. there is only one way back, and that is successful negotiation with the u.s. and international community, to give a high degree of confidence that this program is peaceful and we have the constraints in place to deal with it if they attempt to cheat. >> what do you make of saudi arabia and other of our arab allies? >> with respect to our friends in saudi arabia, they have been witnessing and having to deal with immense change.
immense change in the middle east. from the arab revolution to the fall of mubarak, through the revolution in syria, to the opening of negotiations with iran -- it is a lot of change, and they have deep concerns about each of these things. with respect, i think we share the same goals. we shared the same goals with saudi arabia for decades. >> what do you make of former minister faisal and what he is saying? >> it reflects anxiety coming out of the deep changes that have taken place. >> anxiety about? >> what the outcomes are going to be. there is competition from iran. they do see a threat. i want to stress something. i will get back to the saudis. negotiations with iran over the nuclear program are focused on security. there are other issues with respect to iran that we have problems with and will continue to push back on. >> hezbollah and things like that.
>> absolutely. the interest of the united states with respect to iran are very important. it is the reason we have engaged in tremendous effort to put pressure on iran. iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would disrupt the stability in the middle east. it would cause multiple countries to race towards having their own nuclear capability. it would be a big blow to the international and global proliferation regime. we have a lot at stake. we have put a lot of effort into the sanctions regime, into politically isolating iran. we have engaged in a large military buildup in the region to signal that all options are on the table. and the saudis understand. >> it is said, and you would know, that if iran gets a nuclear capacity or a nuclear weapons and the ability to -- for the missiles to deliver it, and there is no restriction on them developing those missiles is that a possibility?
>> we will have to see what the ultimate deal is here. >> it is often said by people inside that the saudis could get nuclear weapons from the pakistanis, because they helped them get their nuclear weapons in a nanosecond. do you buy that? >> i think that is way too simplistic. >> we will make it more specific. >> from the u.s. perspective and the saudi perspective, the answer to security problems in the middle east is not more states with nuclear weapons. it is not the answer to the problem in the middle east. the answer is to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, therefore preventing the cascading impacts that would affect stability in the middle east and saudi security. >> are you saying if iran got nuclear weapons it is not necessarily true the saudis
could get a nuclear weapon from pakistan because of the relationship they have? >> we would argue the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not in anybody's interest him a going forward. >> that is part of the case you have to make with the iranians. >> the argument with the iranians is pretty straightforward. basically, we are not going to allow you to acquire -- >> you can also argue it is not going to get you anything. they used to throw that back when i would do interviews. it does not give you anything. look at north korea. they do not fear an attack, because they have a nuclear weapon. >> the difference is important to note. i am not sure iran wants to be north korea. i am sure it does not want to be north korea, frankly. i would argue iranian security would not be enhanced. number three, iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and the united states and international
community is determined to ensure they do not. it is a fundamentally different situation than the north korea situation. we are at a different stage in the development of their programs. there is still an opportunity to reverse this course and put in place the kind of regime that can ensure the international community -- >> they could have economic prosperity and be open to the world, and have things the chinese economy has benefited from. >> but not with nuclear weapons.
>> i am saying if there is a deal. >> that is the choice. >> what is the choice in syria that we have right now? >> right now, my judgment is that we should be very focused on the task at hand, with respect to eliminating the chemical weapons and the facilities and materials that could support the development of chemical weapons. i think it is going pretty well. that has been a joint u.s.- russia project. we have been working with the agencies at the u.n. that is a positive outcome. if at the end of the day you thought that one of the -- a probable or possible outcome would be the fragmentation of the state of syria. we are going to be very happy the chemical weapons are out of there. this will be important for israel he security and our security. >> most people think that is going to be the end result, a fragmentation of syria. >> if that is the outcome, we will be very happy that in fact we took nuclear weapons out of
syria and they were not available -- >> chemical weapons. >> chemical weapons. tenneco weapons. and were not available to the government or any other entity. right now, that is an important project. get the chemical weapons out. >> the geneva conference. >> that does not directly impact the underlying conflict. the underlying conflict continues to rage. it is a big story of 2013. it will be big in 2014. >> with respect, ryan crocker, a great diplomat, on the ground, believes the assad regime is getting stronger and it is important for the united states, his words, to reengage. >> what we will have to see is a geneva conference. yet all the parties, including the government of syria, at the table if possible, to talk about ways to resolve the violence and start a political process. it will be hard given the divisions in the opposition and the mistrust that comes out of such a violent, horrible couple of years now of violence. i think that is the next step. the next step is to attempt to sit down and see if a political process can be fleshed out. the view of the united states has been that the opposition should sit down with the government. our view has not been that the
entire -- we would want to see the collapse of the institutions of the state. it is clear at the end of the day that assad cannot rule syria and cannot be ultimately part of a solution. >> meaning what? meaning the alawites who support him can be part of the solution, but he cannot be? ask it is a minority of a significant number of syrians, the alawite community. ultimately, a solution would have to be multiethnic, multi- sector. the question is whether the parties can see their way to that, beginning in the january geneva negotiations, and it is not clear to me. >> what is the end result? and with iran, what are we prepared to accept? what are we prepared to accept in syria?
fracturing of the state? the assad part will not be ruled by his family? >> ultimately, what you would want to have, if possible, is a multi-sectarian -- >> i am asking what is likely to happen. >> i think we should take the best chance we can. by the way, if we can succeed in this chemical weapons effort with the russians, success can build on success. it may provide an opportunity for us to work more closely with the russians on the underlying political solution. we should try to achieve a political settlement, or at least get some understanding reducing the violence, perhaps cease-fires. if that fails, i think you would be looking at some sort of fragmentation of the state. that is not optimal, it has it will present security problems. >> john kerry has some kind of relationship with the prime minister of russia. they have seemingly develop some kind of friendship and relationship.
>> i think that have developed a pretty good work relationship. one of the stories from 2013, from my observation, has been the intensive, exceedingly active, and i think fairly successful diplomacy carried out by secretary kerry. >> i think it is because he is willing to take risks. and that was not true before. >> he is building on a lot of work. i think secretary would tell you with respect to iran and what he was working on, he was building on a platform. >> and things with rouhani are possible that might not have been with ahmadinejad.
>> i think secretary kerry would say that if you were here. he has been an extremely successful secretary of state. i think he has developed a working relationship with the foreign minister of russia. we have work to do on the russia relationship. >> is it a product of what putin is doing at home, or his ambitions with respect to the ukrainians or the georgians? >> it has to do with a number of things. the first four years, we had a constructive relationship with the russians and got a lot done, including an arms control treaty, and continuing understandings in terms of supporting efforts in afghanistan. we supported russia in the wto, and other things. having said that, president putin was elected. i saw him the friday night before he was inaugurated. went over a number of the things we had done positively. but it was clear then, from a combination of russian politics, his own view of where russia fits in the world, and a fundamental disagreement over syria that in fact the relationship was going to stall. and it has stalled. the relationship -- we need to look to trying to find areas where we can work together. i am hoping the syria project on chemical weapons is one of those things, and we can have a more constructive engagement on
syria. but there are a lot of other issues. >> you are deeply worried about the islamists in syria, coming from all over the world. >> i am worried about two things. i am worried about groups fighting in syria and worried about them going home. so it is a -- it is a multidimensional problem. which is why the efforts of secretary and others to try to get some sort of political negotiation going is important. we will have out of syria, for a time going forward, a security problem in the region and perhaps elsewhere, including europe. >> is there a difference in foreign policy from the obama administration because -- from the time you were there?
you just left six months ago. a new national security adviser, susan rice. a new secretary of state, john kerry. there is a new guy at the cia, john brunner. the security team has changed. does it reflect a new policy? asked the president drives the foreign policy of the united states. i think they reflect the president and the president's views. >> brunner was here the other day. i was arguing your point. the president decides foreign policy. he was saying when secretary clinton was there, secretary gates was there, they influenced where the president went. >> they are influential players, obviously in the decisions that were reached. if you look at where we are fundamentally, the fundamental foreign-policy goals -- onomic recovery. the important story in 2013 and
2014 is the u.s. economic recovery. >> let me interrupt you. you and the president and others made clear that a country's continued national security depends on continued economic vitality. you have said that. >> it is an iron law. you have the security challenge continues here with some changes brought about by the election of rouhani. that resulted in the sanctions campaign. third, you have a rebalancing toward asia. although you see a lot of commentary saying -- asking whether the rebalance is sustainable in light of events in the middle east and the push and pull of american obligations >> a rebound or a pivot? >> i would argue rebound. it is the right way to describe it. you can pick your word.
the point is, there was a reemphasis on asia, bringing all the elements we could of national power to bring attention to asia, and the importance to the american future. the fact is, during this year, up to today, there has been a lot of emphasis on this. many trips. the president was not able to go to asia in november because of the shutdown. he is going to go in april. >> and it was a loss. he was not there to have face- to-face meetings. >> i think it was very costly. it was not just xi jinping. it was the presence of the united states as a leader with all the leaders of asia. and very importantly, continuity. very importantly, trade negotiations we have underway in asia right now -- the biggest trade negotiation in the world. >> you believe the most important trade agreement in the world? >> i think it is, but we are working on another one to follow that. >> as naïve as i am, here is what i do not understand. i talked with max baucus, chairman of the senate from montana. he may be the choice to go.
his focus has been on the economy and the american economy. tax reform was his big deal. it seems someone like tom donilon should have been the ambassador to china. if you are interested in continuity of relationships, you were the guy the president sent to meet with these leaders time after time. it was said you carry the china brief. not joe biden. not anybody. you did. >> i spent a lot of time in china. our entire administration did. >> why not name you ambassador to china? >> i have been doing other things. the truth is, the china emphasis and engagement, and the asia emphasis and engagement, was administration-wide. secretary clinton took her first trip as secretary of state to
asia. that was the first time the secretary of state had taken his or her first trip to asia since 1961. that was done early in 2000 nine. with respect to senator baucus, i think it is an excellent selection. why? it has the chinese will see it as one of the most senior people in the u.s. government, a person of stature, was close relationships with the president, coming to represent the united states. >> there is cyclical conversation about the decline of america. tell me why you think america is not losing its step in providing leadership for the world, not withstanding somebody who says, we are not sure about american leadership anymore. we think they are not in decline, but not prepared to play the role they used to. >> i would look at the fundamentals as the most important thing. the big thing -- a recent book called "strategic vision" has an assets and liabilities chart. i think that is a useful way to look at this. it cites american enduring strengths.
if you did a balance sheet approach and thought about the fundamentals of going forward, and you did the list, the size of the economy, the wealth of our economy, our demographic future compared to our competitors, our geography, our military strength, our innovation -- something you spend a lot of time on. look at the most innovative companies in the world. they are american. our higher education system. our alliance system, a unique american asset. no other country in the world has the global set of alliances we have put together on a bipartisan basis since world war ii. a tremendous asset. there is a big difference between leading and having demand to lead. and there is having leverage. the desire for american leadership in asia and around the world is very high right now. you look at other things which have emerged in terms of enduring strengths in just the last couple of years, including our energy future, which i think is a big story coming out of 2013.
the united states today, it is predicted, will be the largest producer of oil by 2020 in the world. we are currently the largest producer of natural gas. you see reductions in the cost of manufacturing. >> we are a net exporter of energy. >> yes. it is a tremendous turnaround. and we came into office in 2008, 2009, the prediction was we would have to import natural gas. this has been turned on its head. this allows a strong manufacturing base. a much stronger position in the world. if you put together that list of enduring strengths, would you want to trade places with anybody else in the world? the answer is no. >> i will close with this. john kerry is involved in three big things. number one is iran. number two is syria. number three is really the palestinians. we have not talked about that. do you believe it is possible
that after all that has been done and said, and all the roadblocks to peace, that there can be, at long last, because of some new formula, some new resolution that makes real progress? >> i think it is in the strategic interest of both parties to make progress with respect to the palestinian conflict. number two, i think the energy secretary kerry has put into this has made a difference. >> how do you explain it? >> the energy? >> is believed he is going to give it his best shot? >> i believe secretary kerry sees opportunities in the world and is determined to -- >> the a part of it. >> seize those opportunities. >> create the initiative. has he been given more latitude than secretary clinton was by
the president? >> at the end of the day, the president makes these decisions. the president sets policy. the president sets the -- gives instructions to his secretary of state. secretary clinton, of course, is one of the most our full and well-known women in the world. individuals in the world. was a very active secretary of state. >> how significant? >> the most significant achievements were around reviving american prestige, power, and authority. there he important. achievements with respect to economic statecraft -- she has led us to maybe finish a major trade negotiation in asia and began one in europe. secretary clinton was very focused, obviously, on this. we obviously ended the war in iraq, american participation. >> we did not leave troops there. we failed on that negotiation.
>> the end of the day, the iraqis made a decision they were not prepared to provide what was necessary to have a small troop presence. >> the afghans may do the same thing. >> i do not know what will happen with afghanistan. we have 47,000 troops in afghanistan. we are on the road to withdrawing all the troops by the end of 2014. resident karzai and the afghans have to decide what they want from an enduring presence. i think it is reckless not to sign this deal. >> interesting that an important figure in iraq evidently advised
the afghan government to do it. >> the foreign minister visited with president karzai, according to reports, and indicated that he should take the understanding that the future of afghanistan is dependent on it. this is very important. afghanistan is very differently situated than iraq. iraq had a middle class, a security force. the afghans are being offered security, economic support, and political support going forward. not to take the world community up on that, i think, would be a missed opportunity, a poor decision. i think most afghans would think that. >> thank you for coming. ♪
>> jonah hill is here. he made his name as an actor with bawdy comedies. in 2011, he was nominated for an oscar for his role in "moneyball." he stars alongside leonardo dicaprio in a new movie by martin scorsese. here is a trailer for "the wolf of wall street." >> excuse me. is this your car in the lot? how much money?
>> $72,000 last month. >> you show me a pay stub for $72,000, i quit my job right now and work for you. hey, listen. i quit. i am going into stocks. >> my name is jordan belfort. i went to the only place that fit my ambitions. >> move the money from the client's pocket into your pocket. >> if you can make money for everyone it is advantageous, correct? >> no. >> we will become the wealthiest one percent of americans. >> i love my country, i love jesus christ, and i love making people rich. >> molded in my image. i am going to teach each and every one of you to be the best. >> this is the greatest company in the world. >> i am becoming a legend. >> married people cannot have friends? >> i was making so much money, i did not know what to do with it.
>> try $6,000 on one dinner. >> we are not poor anymore. >> they could not cure cancer. that is why they were expensive. >> $22 million? three hours? >> is all this legal? [laughter] >> absolutely not. >> your whole inner circle. >> this is bad. >> this is the land of opportunity. >> you just tried to bribe a federal officer. >> this is america. >> this is my home. >> this is for you. >> they are going to need to send in the national guard to take me out, because i ain't going nowhere. >> we don't work for you. >> you have my money taped to your boobs.
that means you work for me. >> tell me what this movie is about and who your character is. >> this movie is about some of the worst evil in the world. probably a lot of the reason for the downfall of our economy and our personal morals and everything. you know. but it really is about these guys, who really, you know, get swept up in the wrong things, in excess and greed. like a modern-day caligula. leonardo dicaprio's character and mind start a company that sells people penny stocks. basically, we get undeserving people, and drain their bank accounts by selling them a dream. >> your character? >> he is probably the closest thing to an animal ever portrayed on screen as far as no
impulse control, no moral decision-making. just someone completely heartless. >> how did you prepare for it? >> i had met with leonardo dicaprio before i was supposed to meet with martin scorsese. i was very adamant that i knew people like this in society, you know? i had seen them exist, and really was saddened by the fact that they do not care about anything besides things. you know? all they care about is more and more, and filling some hole that is never going to be filled, and not caring what you have to do to get those things, you know? i basically -- i just said to them, i have to play this character. and it was the most interesting
process, the cause it was about because it was about -- i am usually not asking the director, especially my favorite filmmaker of all time, saying, i have to play this character. and the actor who would say that to martin scorsese -- but i had seen this person too often. i was interested. >> you knew it. you knew the idea of donnie azoff. >> he is someone i see too often. >> how is leonardo dicaprio as an actor? >> i think he is the finest actor i have ever worked with. as far as being able to immediately go into a place that you did not think was possible to get to that quickly, you know, he is so -- he is so committed. he is so brilliant. and he is so good to the other actors. he makes everyone around him better. it was just -- >> i hear that said. how do you do that? >> you are willing to give up your own great moment for someone else's great moment. they are about to do something
great and you help push them to that place. and he is just -- he becomes that person. you know how people say he became that character? when they yelled action, he was jordan belfort, and it was incredible to be around. >> is this a comedy or a drama? >> i do not know. there are lots of laughs. it is -- if you know the darkest comedy ever made, or the funniest, ever made. >> this is a clip of "the wolf of wall street." >> is that your car on the lot? your jag? you make a lot of money? >> i do. i work for myself. >> i am trying to put it together.
i do not understand. how much money do you make? >> i do not know. $70,000 last month. i am serious. >> i am serious too. how much money do you make? >> $70,000. technically, $72,000. >> you make 72 grand a month? >> yes. >> i tell you what. you show me a pay stub for $72,000 and i quit my job right now and i work for you. what is up? everything is fine. listen, i quit. that was interesting because i had not been on an audition in six years. my first audition was this film. i prepared for months with this audition scene. i have prepared for that seen for months before we started
shooting, before i even had the part. >> headed you prepare for it? >> that is the intro of the character into the film. that clip is the first time you see him in the film, imposing over jordan, asking really inappropriate questions like, how much money do you make? >> is that your car? >> why do you have so much money? i do not understand. tell me why you have more money than i do. it is like a kid putting together -- why is your lollipop bigger than mine? how do i get the bigger -- it is very imposing. and, you know, it was such a great way to meet this character, because that is what he is. he walks to you, gets in your
face, and asks inappropriate questions. he does not realize he is being completely inappropriate. >> how is scorsese? >> he is amazing. >> everything you hoped? >> as a filmmaker, in my experiences working with him -- the beginning part of the scene, the longer part, i am asking how much money you make. the phone call was written as, listen, i quit. that is it. i spent months preparing for the big intro scene. afterwards, the smaller scene, where the only lines were "i quit." we were happy with that scene. he was happy. >> it was written. and then you said -- >> he was happy. we did different improvisations. we did it a few times. moving on. the next scene should have taken an hour to shoot, because it is a really small scene.
but i had not thought about it much. i had thought about the bigger scene. we start doing it, and we do it over and over and over again, and over again. he is just like -- it was not right for him, for some reason. he was not quite exactly sure what it was. and so i started getting really, really nervous. really nervous. so much so that his assistant came up to me and said, are you all right? which spun me out way worse than i had been. we did it a bunch more times. we cannot get it, for whatever reason. he goes, everyone, take a break. kid, come here. he takes me to his video village, his area. i sit next to him. he starts reading the paper. we do not talk. i sit there, nervous. not knowing what to say, or
anything. we sit for 20 minutes. and then he goes, let's try one. we did it once, and that was that. >> what was the difference? >> i do not know. >> he took you past the preparation. you had no preparation. >> i had not thought about it. i do not know what it was. whatever it was, it worked. he was happy. i think maybe i had to get out of my head. i was doing it a certain way. maybe i had to relax and not think about it as intensely, and just sit and breathe for a second. i do not know what it was, but it was the coolest thing. >> if your best friend calls you and says, you made a film with martin scorsese. what would you say? >> i could write a book. >> stories like you told me. >> plus, i have never seen a filmmaker -- you cannot compare him to anyone else, at least in my opinion. he is my favorite artist of any medium, you know?
my favorite artist of all time. you understand that is my actual hero, creatively. i would say the most impressive thing about him -- you will encounter problems on set. a scene will not be working, whether visually, or the acting, or the writing. whatever it is. what martin scorsese can do faster and more efficiently than anyone i have ever seen is fix a problem as easy as it looks for me to go like that. as simple as, the glass is turned the wrong way. but that is how he fixes a massive problem with many moving parts. >> boom. it is done. here is what marty said about jordan. people like jordan, jake lamotta, or the character in "goodfellas" -- people tried to distance themselves from those kinds of characters.
it is someone else. not like me. but in actuality, it is not someone else. it is you and me. if we had been born under different circumstances, we may have made the same mistakes and choices, doing exactly the same things. that is what he said about jordan and these characters. >> or maybe it is -- yes. he is able to make these characters look -- you know, i cannot speak on anything he has said about himself or his characters, because he is absolutely right. what you can watch "goodfellas," and still want to be them in some way, or you are excited by them. they are exciting and interesting in some way. when leo and i were making this movie, we would talk a lot about how some people are going to see this and want to become stockbrokers, you know? not that there is anything wrong with that profession in an honest way, but i was every day
going, i cannot believe this actually happens. >> you learned a lot from judd apatow. what did he teach you? >> that was my film school from 18 to 25. i got to be on movie sets with different directors and different people, creating different things, in movies i am really proud of, movies people seem to enjoy. and he was always open with information. he never held anything back. he wanted to show everyone he was working with how to make good movies, and how to be truthful. his comedy is about truth. all the ones we made that were any good felt relatable to people, felt honest. they were not like a spaceship comedy, per se. it was not like, a spaceship lands in america. we were about friendship and life, things that were honest. >> conventional wisdom is that comedy is harder than drama. is it?
>> it is just incredibly different. the filmmaking process is incredibly, incredibly different. from an actor's perspective -- you are trying to be as honest, and grounded, and real. but in comedy, you have pressure every minute to make the audience laugh, or you have failed. with a drama, you have the room to find every interesting nuance of that character, without the pressure of a hard joke. you understand what i am saying? it is like, in this movie, i can just -- i have a different voice. my eyes are different. everything is different. and i am not worried about landing a joke every minute. whereas in a comedy film, you are really letting everybody down if you do not make them laugh. it is pressure. >> it is an easy matter. you know if you got a laugh or not immediately.
>> it can take away from the depth of the acting. it is hard as can be to make a great comedy. i think it is incredibly hard. all what i love about scorsese and someone like larry sanders certain material is really honest and can be really dark, but the humor comes from character. the humor comes from honestly how people feel and treat each other in a real way. and that is when things get magical, like in "the wolf of wall street." there is a ton of really funny stuff, but it is dark. it comes from the darkness of these guys' life. >> there is dustin hoffman. you worked with him. >> he got me my first audition in show business and is an amazing person. the family is amazing. his son jake plays a good friend of mine in this film. >> did you learn something from him? >> he is my favorite actor.
he is someone who epitomizes, in my opinion, what a great career is. he can make a film like "tootsie," and it is incredibly funny and moving. he can also make "midnight cowboy," which is incredibly gritty and intense-feeling, or "kramer versus kramer." he has made all different styles. he did "death of a salesman" on stage and he can do "hook," and they are both incredible. it is doing so many different things, where you do not want to do the same thing, so you do not not because it is boring or anything, but because you do not get better at doing the same exact thing. >> how do you get better at this point? >> you work with people better than you. >> all the time. >> everyone i work with is better than me. that is truthful. >> it will not be for long.
>> i probably got way better than i ever have, working on this film. just better as an actor. i will bring that to other movies as i go on. >> you have fear or do not have fear? you are willing to risk it all? >> i would do anything if i truly knew i understood the character, and the filmmaker was going to make it honest to the character, and it was going to be a great film or play. >> you would do anything? >> martin scorsese asked me to do anything for this character, i would have, and pretty much do. it is one of the -- you know -- >> things you did not think you would be doing. >> it may be better on screen than in life. >> catherine keener played a role in your life. >> she has been an amazing friend. she changed my life. i have had so many people.
>> what is it that makes people want to help you? >> maybe i look so helpless. i do not know. i do not know. i have been incredibly lucky. >> to have people want to help you, or for people to underestimate you, is a good quality. >> i really enjoyed the element of my career where -- look. i am really lucky to even be in movies in the first place. and the fact that i did a lot of broader, raucous comedies -- i love those films. i was in my early 20's and got to have a great time with my friends. >> you got to be crazy on screen. >> it was like, you cannot act in this kind of film. >> and you got a chance to prove them wrong. >> it is enjoyable. i think it made them more surprised cause i had started in >> you wanted to show them you
could do it. by doing it, you did show them it was nice as a surprise. not just, i will show you. but having done it -- >> it is just enjoyable to show people different sides of yourself, you know? because being funny -- i love being funny. i love sitting in a conversation and joking with someone. but it is not 100% of my life all the time. >> "the simpsons" is -- you love "the simpsons." >> i am a product of "the simpsons" and scorsese films. your sense of humor, your style, what you enjoy about films and entertainment -- i grew up with "the simpsons," and for better or worse scorsese movies. i watch them at a very young age. those are the things i love more than anything in the world. if you can somehow blend those two things in some way -- i don't know. maybe that would be the perfect movie i would direct. >> directing maybe something you would do?
>> i would love to direct movies, right now, i am getting so much joy out of acting. >> the experience and the learning. a great moment for you. >> just as someone trying to learn. i have not felt like -- i in no way feel like i have learned enough. i feel i am learning something new every show. >> you can never learn enough. >> exactly. it's great to see you. >> thank you. is that ok? [laughter] >> was i ok? >> you were amazing. you were great. thank you, charlie. ♪ ♪
>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west" where we cover the technology companies and media companies changing our world. our focus is innovation in the future of business. it's get straight to the rundown. apple finally has a deal to sell the iphone on the world's a guest carrier, china mobile. but how big is it really we will discuss the twitter cofounder and square ceo, jack dorsey, h